NBA players' efficiency numbers almost always decrease with minutes. So that comparison isn't fair. Especially because TS% integrates field goal percentage heavily into the data, but barely takes free throw attempts into account (of which, Ellis takes twice as many as Jack). Slashers usually have poorer TS%'s than jump-shooters, but it's apples and oranges. JJ Reddick has a higher TS% than Ellis, but who starts?

I also attribute Ellis' high turnover numbers to the slasher style. He simply has the ball in his hands a LOT more than Jack, as evident by their usage rates. There are pro's and con's of course. BF has pretty much listed the cons accurately; slashers aren't typically efficient and can cough up a lot of turnovers (see Westbrook, Wade, MKG, etc). But the pro's of a slasher are harder to identify when you strictly use TS% because the stat isn't built for them. Free throw attempts and points are traditional products of slashers, but abstractly, you simply can't quantify the value of a guy who can create his own shot when the offense is stagnant. And as WSU pointed out above, we could have desperately used a shot-creator like Ellis during our January-February cold spell. Curry and Thompson are terrific, but usually they become more dangerous when you have a distributor like Jack or a screen-setter like Lee/Bogut to set them up for perimeter bombs. Ellis can get his offense in single coverage EVERY game. That's valuable, even if his style of play can be mathematically quantified as "inefficient." Such is life.

As far as the Jack-vs-Ellis debate... Come on now. I know you dislike ME11, BF... But this one's not even close.

http://www.countthebasket.com/blog/2008 ... fficiency/ Jack would still be the more efficient scorer once you factor in usage. True shooting percentage does take into account free throws, by the way. It's why Harden is more valuable than Kobe this year and has a better TS percentage.

Ask the Grizzlies as to how important it is have someone that can create their own shot. They have increased their offensive efficiency by five extra points since losing Gay.

I just thought it was disrespectful to Jack to compare his production to Monta's.

Because Jack is putting up all-star like numbers, especially lately, lets get real man.

Jack doesn't have to be an all star to be heads and toes better than Ellis.

Your missing the point in your comparision, making out Jack as some sort of NBA All-star for the warriors compared to Ellis being a scrub, got bias written all over it. And you are also missing the point of Monta's new role of attacking and dishing. I just can't argue with a bias person when it comes to certain topics.

It's not biased. I have numbers to confirm everything I am saying and literally every fan base agrees with this. The only one that thinks Monta is a good player that is comparable to other good players are Warrior fans. Bucks fans don't even like Ellis.

The Bucks are a small market team that have accomplished what exactly ? Will they be making the playoffs ? since when, they should at least be happy with that. You are bias you just need to look in the mirror and admit, simple as that. Dude has changed his game the last month, and attacking more, he can get to the rim at will, thats rare in the NBA. I shouldn't even waste my time having this argument u said, you would take Beans over Monta, that should have been the point not to have an argument with that type of logic.

You are biased towards Monta. You are projecting right now about my bias. I like Monta Ellis and I wouldn't be against him retiring here like he suggested/hinted towards. I just don't think he is good at basketball on any kind of winning level. He has a stretch of offensive games (like 14) that have been really good, yet he is now a different player than the one that has been around for the last five years?

The person most near to him in stats, Mike James. They put up nearly the same exact statistics in every career categories. I don't think you will make the argument Mike James is good.

Bias, I am not I just understand the game fully than most, instead of having tunnel vision I am one that looks at things entirely.

I understand his limitations, he obviously should not be taking long jumpers or 3's when his percentage is so bad at it. But the 10 game span recently is due to adjustments, and that is a big enough data to say he can play at a high level, if he continues to attack and dish.

Adjustments, coaching, when physical talent is met capability you get needed results. Ex: Beans the player you would take over Monta, has no talent, there is no chance he goes on any sort of hot streak in which he put up any sort of numbers no matter how you try to adjust the game for him. Monta's latest tear is due to adjustments like I mentioned. Mike James is a horrible comparison.

He is on a playoff team, a winning team so that debunks that argument.

NBA players' efficiency numbers almost always decrease with minutes. So that comparison isn't fair. Especially because TS% integrates field goal percentage heavily into the data, but barely takes free throw attempts into account (of which, Ellis takes twice as many as Jack). Slashers usually have poorer TS%'s than jump-shooters, but it's apples and oranges. JJ Reddick has a higher TS% than Ellis, but who starts?

I also attribute Ellis' high turnover numbers to the slasher style. He simply has the ball in his hands a LOT more than Jack, as evident by their usage rates. There are pro's and con's of course. BF has pretty much listed the cons accurately; slashers aren't typically efficient and can cough up a lot of turnovers (see Westbrook, Wade, MKG, etc). But the pro's of a slasher are harder to identify when you strictly use TS% because the stat isn't built for them. Free throw attempts and points are traditional products of slashers, but abstractly, you simply can't quantify the value of a guy who can create his own shot when the offense is stagnant. And as WSU pointed out above, we could have desperately used a shot-creator like Ellis during our January-February cold spell. Curry and Thompson are terrific, but usually they become more dangerous when you have a distributor like Jack or a screen-setter like Lee/Bogut to set them up for perimeter bombs. Ellis can get his offense in single coverage EVERY game. That's valuable, even if his style of play can be mathematically quantified as "inefficient." Such is life.

As far as the Jack-vs-Ellis debate... Come on now. I know you dislike ME11, BF... But this one's not even close.

http://www.countthebasket.com/blog/2008 ... fficiency/ Jack would still be the more efficient scorer once you factor in usage. True shooting percentage does take into account free throws, by the way. It's why Harden is more valuable than Kobe this year and has a better TS percentage.

Ask the Grizzlies as to how important it is have someone that can create their own shot. They have increased their offensive efficiency by five extra points since losing Gay.

Come on, BF. I said it takes FT's into account, but BARELY. FT's are worth half a regular bucket, but they're only given 44% credit. The formula is unquestionably biased towards jump shooters. It's not even close.

TS% is not the be all, end all stat to determine the value of a player.

It's not biased at all towards jump shooters. In fact, it's more biased to free throw shooters. eFG is for jump shooters. True shooting is literally how well you score for your team. It has a 95 percent correlation to a teams scoring ability.

It would be very hard to debunk true shooting percentage the way you are going about it because it is literally based on scoring and a teams efficiency.

TS% = 100 * (1/2) * PTS / (FGA + 0.44*FTA)

It's why Harden blows Kobe away in TS. Because he gets to the line so often. They are tied in eFG.

Why are free throws multiplied by .44? Their worth .5 of a regular attempt. And they open up the offense and have the potential to make defenders adjust in order to avoid fouling you, so their impact could easily be worth more then simply 1 point. Overall points over selectively-accounted-for attempts favors players that shoot 3's. Not even an argument.

This conversation will go nowhere except back to the "stats don't tell the whole story" vs the "yes they do" verbatim. As a former player, I can guarantee you that not everything is quantifiable. Do any former players claim that stats tell the whole story?

Tonights game against Sacramento is a great example why the Warriors should be Lee's team. Once again we kept jacking up low percentage, long range jump shots(which weren't falling) instead of getting the ball inside to Lee and to a lessor extent Bogut. It looks nice when the 3's are going in, but it's just plain awful when they're not. We live and die by the 3 and tonight we had a painful death against a terrible team. The Warriors have had a great season but this style of play won't get us too far into the playoff rounds.

Once you adjust for pace, we take the 24th most threes in the league. Outside of Klay/Curry no one else consistently takes threes. We definitely do not live and die by the three. We have won plenty of games where we shot under 30 percent for threes. One example is when we beat the Thunder, we shot only 27 percent on threes.

But a good amount of threes are a great formula in the playoffs. There is a reason all the top offenses and elite teams in the league can knock down the three ball like a ************. Because that's what a good offense demands.

Rockets beat the Jazz recently. They had a lower field goal percentage, turned it over more, shot a lower three point percentage, and were outrebounded.

They won. Think about it.

Edit: I can understand why people get frustrated with the three ball. But it's so vital to keep using it. If someone is hitting 28 percent on threes, that's literally more valuable than 42 percent on two's. It's very easy for threes to be worth more than two's in the long run.